Four left wing fanatics and one turncoat conservative should not be able to decide, on their own accord and willy-nilly, major issues affecting all of society. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act and defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The 1993 Congress was a much larger representation of society, when sensible minds had control of this country. Anthony Kennedy is a devil in sheep’s clothing. The four left wingers operate without any moral direction. One female Justice, Kagan, is possibly homosexual and Ginsburg and Kagan performed gay marriages. They should have been recused and not allowed to participate in this major decision, one of many decisions that continue to rip the fabric of what we once called civilized society.
Morals do have a place in a decision by a court. Our present left wing of the Supreme Court lacks all moral direction. There is absolutely no valid excuse, much less valid legal argument, to assent to the marriage of two human males or two human females. For God’s sake, sodomy was illegal in most States not too long ago. Now our Supreme Court has declared the right to marry a fundamental right protected by the constitution. This right is now extended to same sex partners. The court has again used the ubiquitous and ambiguous due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to expand formally illegal behavior. Remember Roe vs Wade, wherein the Court gave the right to a mother to kill her unborn child. What about the father? Didn’t he contribute to half of the equation? Does he now have a right to affirm or deny the death knell of the mother? Fortunately homosexuals will never have to make these type of decisions. Sexual attraction is not a fundamental right. The 14th Amendment has created nothing but confusion in our laws and case law. The 14th amendment should be immediately repealed.
I can think of any of a number of reasons to outlaw gay marriage. The first is State’s rights. Where is the line from which States cannot cross? The 50 States have a compelling interest to regulate the institution of marriage. Since time began, marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. That definition placed a limit on marriage. Let’s look at other limits. Consanguinity is one. You cannot marry your first cousin in most States. Well if I really love my first cousin and really want to marry her, isn’t a State’s decision to prevent such marriages infringing on my right to marry and denying me affection. You are discriminating against first cousins. What if I really liked a fourteen year old female and decided I wanted to marry her. If I were having a sexual relationship with her, I would probably be charged with carnal knowledge of a juvenile. Well if I say that I really love this 14 year old female and I really want to marry her and the State prevents me, you are discriminating against me. If society decides that sodomy is a legitimate act and no longer criminal, what would prevent society from eventually deciding that marrying and having sex with a 14 year old is now legitimate and no longer criminal. (Such actions seem to be legal in Muslim countries.) How about a male homosexual touching and fondling a male juvenile that the State is now required to give him? Are we to get rid of the crime of indecent behavior with a juvenile? It all comes back to morals. And these morals come from somewhere. Our Judea-Christian legal system comes from and is based on the bible. Without moral direction, anything goes. Pornography may now become legitimate. Our society has become promiscuous and acknowledges and accepts depraved behavior as normal. The future generations of our children will suffer. They will lose their identity as male and female, all in order that no one is offended or discriminated against. A humanity with no distinctions loses its civilizing constituents.
The Supreme Court has extended marriage to prisoners in previous decisions, but that was between a man and a woman. Usually some pen-pal female decides to marry an incarcerated male prisoner. Just imagine the chaos in our prisons when males will now demand to marry and co-habitate in their cells with their male partners. The feds will be running legalized whore houses.
Sexual orientation is not a protected class. The court can discriminate against sexual orientation. One cannot be discriminated against based on race, sex and religion. And don’t say that preventing same sex marriage is discrimination based on sex. Discrimination based on sex regards discrimination between a man versus a woman. In other words a business cannot openly pay a woman more than a man for the same exact job. I can only assume that now there can be no distinction made between man and woman. Will the next step be discrimination between a male, man and a male, homosexual? We are ending up with unisex bathrooms and men are being forced to come in contact with their feminine side. Since this decision, I look at a man and wonder if he is a man or a homosexual or maybe even a transvestite. I am beginning to look at women in a different light too.
Homosexuals behave that way because of same sex encounters as children and/or sexual molestation, not as a result of nature and DNA. I would venture to guess that every gay and lesbian had a sexual encounter with either an adult or a peer of the same sex during their childhood. These encounters remain vivid in the mind and eventually come out to express themselves as the confused child turns into an adult. The individual ultimately finds justification and acceptance of the behavior, condones it and perpetuates it. To put icing on the cake, his asinine Court held that the right for homosexuals to marry safeguards children. “Marriage affords the permanence and stability important to children’s best interest.” Confused children are the result of inappropriate sexual behavior and need the most protection. I would venture to say that these five justices do not have one child between the five of them. This court used language from a case describing heterosexual marriage and applied it to homosexuals in this case. A child’s best interest is to have a father and mother, not two daddies or to mommas. I can just envision two daddies taking their young male child to a school function where all the other little male children have a mother and father. Can you imagine the harassment and ridicule that that poor little male child of the homosexuals will receive the rest of the school year. And what about a generation of children who grow up in this gender warfare. The court has opened Pandora’s Box, a box which contains all the evils of the world.
This march for legalization of homosexual marriage was driven for one purpose and one purpose only- economics. They wanted the economic benefits of marriage: community property regimes, health insurance, death and survival benefits, social security benefits, tax status filings, and the list goes on. One final benefit: Marriage between homosexuals will produce divorce. The separation rate between homosexual males is much higher than the divorce rate of 50% between heterosexual couples.
Marriage is defined by the ultimate law book, the bible. Our country was founded on biblical principles. The march away from the bible began after WWII and we are proceeding at an increasingly rapid pace. The ultimate coup will occur when religious liberty will be placed on the back burner and ultimately forgotten. Religion has been a driving force governing relations between nation States for at least the last two thousand years. Look at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the conquest of the Muslims in the 600s A.D., the crusades of the Christians after the first millennium, the revolt of the protesting Catholics in the 1500s A.D. and the reemergence of the Muslims in the 2000s. Religion and its morals drives politics and decisions made by politicians. This court used no moral direction. Are homosexuals going to sue the Catholic Church for not performing such marriages? They have been successful at suing businesses for not baking cakes. In one stroke of a pen, the Court has set the stage for armed conflict in the United States. ISIS would behead you. I call for jihad.
Marriage has always been defined as a union between man and woman because of the result of such a union is children. Procreation is the basis upon which homosexual unions can be discriminated against. No matter how hard the homosexuals try, they will never have biological children of their own.
What’s next? If three people want to get married, shouldn’t their love and affection create a significant constitutional right to exercise? If one of the three needs medical insurance, just marry the other two and you are now a spouse. The Court has now opened up the definition of marriage to anything that humans can imagine. The result will be the same as the free exercise of religion. We have extraterrestrial scientologists calling themselves a religion and devil worshipers calling themselves a religion and a group of pot smokers calling themselves a religion. The Court has successfully demeaned and marginalized a fundamental right which now bears no weight, has no value and is pretty much worthless. A worthless right equals no right at all. I want to marry my dog, Theo. I love him so.
The Supreme Court does not have the final say though. (You thought I was going to say God has the final say.) We, the people, do. The conservative States, mostly the southern ones, must ban together, and push for and convene a Constitutional Convention. We, the people, can change the Constitution and a radical Supreme Court has no power to override the will of the people. Issues to include in the Convention should include a balance budget amendment, term limits for Congress, repeal of the 14th Amendment and an amendment to define marriage as union between man and woman. Who will take up the jihad? Will You?
Morals do have a place in a decision by a court. Our present left wing of the Supreme Court lacks all moral direction. There is absolutely no valid excuse, much less valid legal argument, to assent to the marriage of two human males or two human females. For God’s sake, sodomy was illegal in most States not too long ago. Now our Supreme Court has declared the right to marry a fundamental right protected by the constitution. This right is now extended to same sex partners. The court has again used the ubiquitous and ambiguous due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to expand formally illegal behavior. Remember Roe vs Wade, wherein the Court gave the right to a mother to kill her unborn child. What about the father? Didn’t he contribute to half of the equation? Does he now have a right to affirm or deny the death knell of the mother? Fortunately homosexuals will never have to make these type of decisions. Sexual attraction is not a fundamental right. The 14th Amendment has created nothing but confusion in our laws and case law. The 14th amendment should be immediately repealed.
I can think of any of a number of reasons to outlaw gay marriage. The first is State’s rights. Where is the line from which States cannot cross? The 50 States have a compelling interest to regulate the institution of marriage. Since time began, marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. That definition placed a limit on marriage. Let’s look at other limits. Consanguinity is one. You cannot marry your first cousin in most States. Well if I really love my first cousin and really want to marry her, isn’t a State’s decision to prevent such marriages infringing on my right to marry and denying me affection. You are discriminating against first cousins. What if I really liked a fourteen year old female and decided I wanted to marry her. If I were having a sexual relationship with her, I would probably be charged with carnal knowledge of a juvenile. Well if I say that I really love this 14 year old female and I really want to marry her and the State prevents me, you are discriminating against me. If society decides that sodomy is a legitimate act and no longer criminal, what would prevent society from eventually deciding that marrying and having sex with a 14 year old is now legitimate and no longer criminal. (Such actions seem to be legal in Muslim countries.) How about a male homosexual touching and fondling a male juvenile that the State is now required to give him? Are we to get rid of the crime of indecent behavior with a juvenile? It all comes back to morals. And these morals come from somewhere. Our Judea-Christian legal system comes from and is based on the bible. Without moral direction, anything goes. Pornography may now become legitimate. Our society has become promiscuous and acknowledges and accepts depraved behavior as normal. The future generations of our children will suffer. They will lose their identity as male and female, all in order that no one is offended or discriminated against. A humanity with no distinctions loses its civilizing constituents.
The Supreme Court has extended marriage to prisoners in previous decisions, but that was between a man and a woman. Usually some pen-pal female decides to marry an incarcerated male prisoner. Just imagine the chaos in our prisons when males will now demand to marry and co-habitate in their cells with their male partners. The feds will be running legalized whore houses.
Sexual orientation is not a protected class. The court can discriminate against sexual orientation. One cannot be discriminated against based on race, sex and religion. And don’t say that preventing same sex marriage is discrimination based on sex. Discrimination based on sex regards discrimination between a man versus a woman. In other words a business cannot openly pay a woman more than a man for the same exact job. I can only assume that now there can be no distinction made between man and woman. Will the next step be discrimination between a male, man and a male, homosexual? We are ending up with unisex bathrooms and men are being forced to come in contact with their feminine side. Since this decision, I look at a man and wonder if he is a man or a homosexual or maybe even a transvestite. I am beginning to look at women in a different light too.
Homosexuals behave that way because of same sex encounters as children and/or sexual molestation, not as a result of nature and DNA. I would venture to guess that every gay and lesbian had a sexual encounter with either an adult or a peer of the same sex during their childhood. These encounters remain vivid in the mind and eventually come out to express themselves as the confused child turns into an adult. The individual ultimately finds justification and acceptance of the behavior, condones it and perpetuates it. To put icing on the cake, his asinine Court held that the right for homosexuals to marry safeguards children. “Marriage affords the permanence and stability important to children’s best interest.” Confused children are the result of inappropriate sexual behavior and need the most protection. I would venture to say that these five justices do not have one child between the five of them. This court used language from a case describing heterosexual marriage and applied it to homosexuals in this case. A child’s best interest is to have a father and mother, not two daddies or to mommas. I can just envision two daddies taking their young male child to a school function where all the other little male children have a mother and father. Can you imagine the harassment and ridicule that that poor little male child of the homosexuals will receive the rest of the school year. And what about a generation of children who grow up in this gender warfare. The court has opened Pandora’s Box, a box which contains all the evils of the world.
This march for legalization of homosexual marriage was driven for one purpose and one purpose only- economics. They wanted the economic benefits of marriage: community property regimes, health insurance, death and survival benefits, social security benefits, tax status filings, and the list goes on. One final benefit: Marriage between homosexuals will produce divorce. The separation rate between homosexual males is much higher than the divorce rate of 50% between heterosexual couples.
Marriage is defined by the ultimate law book, the bible. Our country was founded on biblical principles. The march away from the bible began after WWII and we are proceeding at an increasingly rapid pace. The ultimate coup will occur when religious liberty will be placed on the back burner and ultimately forgotten. Religion has been a driving force governing relations between nation States for at least the last two thousand years. Look at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the conquest of the Muslims in the 600s A.D., the crusades of the Christians after the first millennium, the revolt of the protesting Catholics in the 1500s A.D. and the reemergence of the Muslims in the 2000s. Religion and its morals drives politics and decisions made by politicians. This court used no moral direction. Are homosexuals going to sue the Catholic Church for not performing such marriages? They have been successful at suing businesses for not baking cakes. In one stroke of a pen, the Court has set the stage for armed conflict in the United States. ISIS would behead you. I call for jihad.
Marriage has always been defined as a union between man and woman because of the result of such a union is children. Procreation is the basis upon which homosexual unions can be discriminated against. No matter how hard the homosexuals try, they will never have biological children of their own.
What’s next? If three people want to get married, shouldn’t their love and affection create a significant constitutional right to exercise? If one of the three needs medical insurance, just marry the other two and you are now a spouse. The Court has now opened up the definition of marriage to anything that humans can imagine. The result will be the same as the free exercise of religion. We have extraterrestrial scientologists calling themselves a religion and devil worshipers calling themselves a religion and a group of pot smokers calling themselves a religion. The Court has successfully demeaned and marginalized a fundamental right which now bears no weight, has no value and is pretty much worthless. A worthless right equals no right at all. I want to marry my dog, Theo. I love him so.
The Supreme Court does not have the final say though. (You thought I was going to say God has the final say.) We, the people, do. The conservative States, mostly the southern ones, must ban together, and push for and convene a Constitutional Convention. We, the people, can change the Constitution and a radical Supreme Court has no power to override the will of the people. Issues to include in the Convention should include a balance budget amendment, term limits for Congress, repeal of the 14th Amendment and an amendment to define marriage as union between man and woman. Who will take up the jihad? Will You?
RSS Feed